Skip to main content

About this Show

U.S. House of Representatives

News News/Business. Live coverage of House proceedings.




San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 91 (627 MHz)






Us 34, Brown 30, Massachusetts 26, Washington 20, United States 16, Gary Johnson 12, Nevada 12, Warren 11, Afghanistan 10, Ross Perot 10, Romney 9, Scott Brown 8, China 7, U.s. 7, Obama 7, Boston 7, Elizabeth Warren 6, America 6, Ron Paul 6, Ms. Warren 5,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    U.S. House of Representatives    News  News/Business. Live  
   coverage of House proceedings.  

    October 1, 2012
    5:00 - 8:00pm EDT  

>> thank you. the next question is for senator heller. >> the school district is the fifth largest of its kind in the nation. more than 300,000 students. it has over 60,000 students. nevada has one of the worst academic test scores in the country. what do you think should be done to better the educational system? >> i think that is an important question, especially for our economy. i want to point out one thing. she posed for sequestration and now says it will not happen. can you imagine that kind of leadership? she goes for the fiscal cliff and now she says it will not happen.
let's talk about education. this is the problem i see. we have a department of education in washington. they have 3500 employees that make over $100,000 a year. they are dictating to the school district how to do their jobs. i think that is a shame and it is wrong. i am not talking about closing down the department of education. i have never said that and never will. can we reduce the size of that department of education and get that money down to the school district? i believe the best education for children in nevada comes between parents, teachers, and principles. -- principals. those are who should be making the decisions. >> if i could quickly comment. my opponent mentioned my vote on sequestration. just a few questions ago, he said he voted to end medicare by turning it over to private insurance companies twice. he said he was proud to any said he does not mean it, it would never pass anyway. all right, look. i understand the importance of a
good education. i am the first person in my family to go to college. my dad has got a ninth grade education. a good education changes your life. our students here are not just competing anymore with places in the united states. not just montana. they are competing with other emerging economies across the planet. we have to invest in our cells. -- in ourselves. i was astonished knowing the importance of a quality education when my opponent voted to slash grants and voted to increase the interest payments on student loans. that is how i went to school. that is how thousands of nevada at middle income families go to school. they depend on it. my opponent voted to slash. and he in -- he voted to double. as far as the department of education is concerned, at the lincoln county dinner, he very clearly said it is exactly what
he would do, eliminate the department of education. it was picked up by "the times." >> thank you. >> that is not accurate but that is fine. i am not surprised she will continue with that. my opponent in 2010 voted against the loan program. it helped generations of americans get their education. she has to be careful with what she said. my wife is a schoolteacher. she taught school and works within school districts. she understands the importance of parents, teachers, and principles working for the -- and principals working for the better education of those students. this is what you get. you get 3500 bureaucrats sitting round a table and try to figure ought to be teaching their children. it usually comes with unfunded mandates. a stake those billions and get it to the state of nevada. i have far more confidence in the governor than i do with those bureaucrats. in washington, d.c. >> it is time for the candidates
to make their closing statements. congresswoman berkeley, you are up first. >> thank you. when i first came to nevada as a child, i knew that this was a place for me to be. my family made a life for ourselves in this state, and i think it is very important for me to make sure that those who come behind me, and rations to -- generations to come, have the same opportunities that my family had when we first came to nevada. this election is about the falling. people come over to me and say, i never missed a day of work. i never missed a mortgage payment. i lost my job. i lost my home. what will i do? the answer to that question is
what this election will be about. who is going to fight for middle-income families? who will stick up for the people of the state of nevada? we need a champion tomake sure we concentrate on good paying jobs here in the state and we keep people in their homes and we protect older americans from ending their medicare. by turning it over to private insurance companies. veterans and make sure they get the benefits they deserve. my opponent is planning for the -- playing for the other side. he is taking care of the big guys. they do not need our help. wall street corporations, big oil companies, they are doing fine. the people in the state of nevada need a champion. at that time, my opponent was championing the wealthiest among us. i think the people in the stated that the state of nevada know just by listening to us and who is in their corner and who fights for them every day. i am asking for your vote so i can continue to help the people
in the state of nevada. >> thank you. >> thank you again and thank you for taking the time. i appreciate those at the university. kmpb. i think it has been very informative. tomorrow morning, one in five american men will not go to work. we have 1 million less women working today than four years ago appeared for every job, for -- four years ago. for every new job, for every real job that is created here in this country, four disappeared. drive around the state. i see far more going agrobusiness sales than i do grand openings. -- i see far more going out of business sales. this is the problem we have in america today. it is like driving through a snowstorm.
the speed limit may say you can go 65 or 70 miles per hour, but everyone is driving at 20 m.p.h. because they are afraid of the next crash. that is where american families and businesses are today. they can be going 65 or 70 miles an hour but they have come to a screeching halt because of the economic policies of my opponent. the policies are like a big wet blanket on economic growth on this country. the good news is it can change. it can change. we can take this country down the right road. i have seen it before in 1981 while reagan became president. he created 40 million jobs. -- 14 million jobs. in his first term. i need your help and your support. i believe we can turn this country around. i believe we can turn that -- nevada around. this is what will happen. i am thrilled and proud to be 6. thank you. >> that includes tonight's -- debate. tonight's i would like to thank the candidates. i would like to thank you for joining us. good night. [captioning performed by
national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the c-span 2012 coverage continues later today when we take you live to the university of massachusetts, for a debate between republican incumbent scott brown and elizabeth warren. you can see that live at 7:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. and after that, we will go west to nebraska. that will start live at 8:00 eastern, and you can listen to both of those debates on c-span radio or watch them on line. and later tonight, mitt romney holds a campaign rally in denver. he is scheduled to speak at the air and space museum. it is the last public event before the presidential debate on wednesday. you can see his comments live at 9:15 eastern on c-span2. >> china has cheated. i will finally do something the
president has not been willing to do, which is to call them on the carpet for it and label chided a manipulator. >> we have made more changes against china in our term than the previous administration has done in two, and, by the way, we are winning in those states. >> you can watch and engage with c-span with our live debate preview, followed by two ways to watch the debate lies. on c-span, both candidates on screen during the entire event, and then the multi camera version, and falling, your reaction. follow our live coverage on c- span, c-span radio, and online at >> former new mexico governor and libertarian can it -- can the -- candidate gary johnson.
host: joining us now is gary johnson, former governor of mexico. he is the libertarian nominee. gary johnson, first question. look at the major party candidates. what is missing in the debate and what do you bring to the table? guest: how about the truth, for starters. the notion that obama and mitt romney are arguing over who will spend more on medicare. when we need to have a raging debate in this country on how we cut medicare spending, spending, i think we will find ourselves in the midst of a monetary collapse. that issue/ what is your prescription?
pardon the expression. guest: i oversaw the reform of medicaid when i was governor of new mexico. we saved hundreds of millions of dollars. we set a better health-care networks for the poor. i believe if the government blocked -- done away with the strings and the manas, i could have overseen the delivery of health care to the poor. -- do away with the mandates. health care for those over 65. get the federal government out of health care completely. get is how we're going to out of this. giving it up to the states. 50 laboratories of innovation. i think that is exactly what we will have.
we will have some fabulous success. we will also have some horrible failures. that's how we will find ourselves out of this. host: gary johnson is joining us from new mexico this morning. we will put the phone numbers on the bottom of the screen. you can see the phone lines on the bottom of the screen. as we take a look at the libertarian nominee. there was a recent gallup poll. americans are sort of split on the need for a third party. is your argument for a third party -- what is your argument for a third party? guest: i would argue i'm not the third choice but the only choice. i will be on the ballot in all 50 states. we're on the ballot in 47 states and the district of columbia and we are litigated in the other three.
none of the other candidates will come close to what i just said. where is the difference between the two? i will argue we should get out of afghanistan home tomorrow and bring the troops home. let's end the drug war and legalize marijuana now. i would never have signed the national authorization act allowing citizens to be detained without being charged. i would not have signed the patriot act. i think homeland security is a terribly redundant. tsa should be airlines, states, municipalities. balance the federal budget now. what we're doing is not sustainable. the day of reckoning is close.
a monetary collapse is one the dollars we have in our pockets do not buy a thing because of front and center are jobs. i will be the only candidate advocating eliminating income tax, corporate tax, abolishing the irs and replacing that with one federal consumption tax. i embrace the fair tax. i think that is the answer to jobs. if the private sector does not create tens of millions of jobs, i did not know what it will take to create tens of millions of jobs. it is the entry to china. i see manufacturing jobs
flocking back to the united states. are you hearing these things from these other two guys? no. they are arguing over who will spend more money on medicare. romney said he wants to increase spending for the military and balance the budget. it doesn't add up. i guess we believe in santa claus and the easter bunny and i do not think they are coming. host: gary johnson is with us and will add a third line for third party voters. we will get to your calls in just a couple of moments. what is the strategy for the rest of the election? guest: right now there is a lot of attention that is being drawn to what it is that i am saying. i'm being recognized for being at 6% nationally. i'll ask you an obvious
question that has an obvious answer. are you hearing my name six times for every time you hear obama or romney's name 100 times? if my name was just being mentioned in line with where i'm calling, i think my 6% would be 14% and i would be the next president of the united states. host:. from -- from pittsburgh -- gary from pittsburgh. caller: i saw your debate about three months ago. you really nailed him to the wall. he looked kind of stupid. i was reading a lot about the democrats and republican party.
the campaigns of obama and romney are similar. read the history about them and the trilateral commission. they are controlling both parties. that is a scary thing. i really respect your issues and i think you're knowledgeable. independent parties are being played by ron paul. i wish there was more strength for you. i just wish you well as you continue to -- guest: thank you. host: gary johnson. guest: when i entered into the republican race for the
nomination, i thought it was going to be hard to marginalize two candidates onstage talking about the same thing. i am talking about ron paul and myself. i found myself excluded in ways that are unfair. this country was not when i believe to be what it was. which was giving everybody an equal shake at this. it is a system that is manipulated and different than my experience running for governor of new mexico. running for the republican nomination for governor in mexico, the republican party in new mexico was very inclusive, including me in all the debates and discussions. they made me part of the process believing the eventual nominee would be stronger as a result of more oysters.
-- more voices as opposed to less. host: gina, good morning. caller: yes, good morning. thank you for running. i was a ron paul supporter. you know, you are right on on all the issues and on the war. i do commend you. you can look up on my friends page and see all these articles. he's to work for ronald reagan. is there a way -- are you doing anything to get into the race cycle with obama and romney?
host: what do you say? we had a similar question from twitter. guest: right now i'm excluded from the first debate. the commission is the presidential debate commission and that is private and made up of republicans and democrats with no interest in seeing a third voice on stage. we have filed three lawsuits to get me on stage based on other third-party candidates who have there doesn't seem to be much hope. we filed on the antitrust round, -- browns. -- grounds. something that has not been done before. host: how much do these debates matter and what are you looking for to hearing on wednesday? guest: the debates are tantamount to me having a chance of winning.
you can close the lid on winning the election. is winning getting enough votes to cause one of the other two who ends up winning to give more than just lip service to these issues? potentially. you know, steve, i view this as a victory every single day. there are so many people -- i think i speak on behalf of the majority of americans. i think they consider themselves fiscally responsible and socially respecting. reachingacc -- socially accepting.
i am in that broad brush category myself. how does that equate to all the issues that we face today? i do not think either party -- i don't think democrats are good on civil liberties. i don't think republicans are good at dollars and cents. when it comes to civil liberties and being republican, it is not happening at all. host: you might remember john anderson won 6.6% of the national vote. ralph nader has won several times. you have been called the original tea party candidate. i want to play a little bit of tape with ross perot. we will show this interview tonight at 9:00 p.m. he reflects on the tea party
movement. let's take a listen. [video clip] >> i'm wondering what your thoughts were with the tea party revolution. >> it was interesting to see that happen. i think it had managed in impact, don't you? it is not the solution, buti think it was a healthy thing to happen. hopefully a lot of american citizens. host: what do you make of the tea party movement? guest: the notion of dollars and sense that we have to balance revenues with expenditures -- spending. talk about the occupied --
occupy movement. it is about the inequality that exists in this country. i don't think republicans and the difference between corporate welfare and free markets. democrats, the same way. the country doles it out unfairly. by adopting the fair tax, i issues in the rear end. pink slips get issued to half of the lobbyists. host: here's a comment via twitter. what do you think? guest: in four states, have put this out to the question. i take more votes from obama in some states and more votes from romney in other states.
north carolina and michigan. a wasted vote it is a vote for somebody you don't believe in. i make a pitch that everybody waste their vote on may and i am the next president of the united states. based on my resume, there is nothing to suggest that i could not do the job but thati would do a good job at it. host: richard from new york, republican, thank you for waiting. caller: i appreciate what you did with that one debate when you mentioned ron paul. you and him what had been a good team. the only other choice besides ron paul is you.
they said the less of two evils is still an evil. all this promoting the homosexual agenda. we have to have a change. ron paul was the grandfather of the tea party. i hope to see you on the show. i appreciate you running. guest: well, thank you. i support marriage equality. i think marriage equality is a constitutionally guaranteed act, on par with the civil-rights of the 1960's. host: john from illinois. john is an independent. hey there. caller: the only problem that i have is about the tax issue.
the reason why i say that is our taxes in this country have neverwhat they were set up for was that the rich were supposed to pay the majority of their taxes in federal taxes. working-class and the port were supposed to pay the majority of theirs in homeowners' taxes, city and state taxes -- ordering class and the poor. everything is out of sorts. when you are on fixed income and these states will have to have such a high tax rate because the federal government will have such a lower one. anybody i fixed tax rate goes in and buys a refrigerator that
costs $400, will have about a $100 tax on the refrigerator. that is the problem. the ones it will hurt our people that are retired, people that are on disability, things like that. otherwise, i am completely in line with you. i voted for ron paul in 1988. i voted for paul brown. i think he -- i can remember what year it was that he ran as a libertarian. i voted for ross perot once. i am an open-minded person and i watch things very closely. host: thank you for calling. guest: i think by going to a national consumption tax, one
federal national consumption tax -- i think that's a lot more fair. it ends up being cost-neutral. choose a can of coke as an example. it sells for a dollar. in that $1, there is 23% of embedded tax. federal tax, social security match, medicare, and empowerment. -- unemployment. all that goes away. unemployment would come out of the proceeds of the fair tax. so you bleed that out of the coke can that sells for a buck. if you think they will continue to sell that for a dollar, cola is very competitive.
it will sell for 80 cents. if you think that coke will continue to sell their canfor $1, -- that can for $1, it is a competitive market. it would be great to have a debate about how you implement one federal consumption tax in the best way possible. i like to point out that whenever we tax, we get less of. we taxing today? -- what are we texting today? -- what are we taxing today? income. i am embracing the fair tax because it gets the discussion down the road to waste.
-- a ways. the best way to deal with the consumption tax will be regressive? it is going to be regressive. it gives everybody in the country a $200 check. that avoids the criticism of it being regressive. with it? maybe not. but that is what we should be having a raging debate and discussion over. host: if your writes about education on twitter -- a fewer rights about education on twitter. do you want to clarify your education policy? guest: i believe to reform education, we need to bring
competition to education. what is the best thing the federal government could do to improve education in this country? i maintain it will be to abolish the federal department of education. it was established under 979 under jimmy carter -- it was established in 1979 under jimmy carter. is there anything that suggests that the department of education has been value added? i would argue no. each state gets about 11 cents out of every dollar that each state spends. you have to do a, b, c, d. here is 11 cents to do that. to do that, it costs 16 cents. what nobody really recognizes is
that money. give education to the states. 50 laboratories of best practices. we will have some fabulous successes and some horrible failures that would be avoided. 50 different laboratories working on this. i would suggest that we come up with some incredibly innovative, new ways of delivering education in this country. host: our guest is joining us from sante fe, the formerhe is currently the libertarian presidential nominee and is on the ballot in 47 states plus d.c. he is challenging michigan, oklahoma, and another. are you confident you will get
those last three states? guest: 0, seems to be the worst of all -- oklahoma seems to be the worst of all. two out of the three. these barriers that been put in place are to the detriment of everyone watching. when not have more voices debating and discussing as opposed to fewer? ballot in all 50 states, something we believe we still will achieve. if anybody thinks the system is fair, it is now. host: how much money have the raised and spent? do you have an idea? $2.5 million range. right now i am calling at 6%. -- polling at 6%.
gosh, if i had a billion dollars, i think i would be the next president of the united states. caller: i have been a fan since chris hayes introduced me to you on this morning program. you're getting nader-ized. host: what does that mean? caller: they are freezing him out of the debates same as it did to ralph nader. gary has great ideas. i was a big backer of barack obama but gary johnson is real what do you think we'll do about wall street and our present industrial complex?
the cd coming collapse of the collapse of the dollar? our dollar is not going to be worth 70 cents if somebody does not do something. guest: it will be a bond market collapse. right now treasury is printing money. the banks are not giving it to they are buying of treasurys in a closed loop. where they can make money at no risk whatsoever. this is not fair. this is absolutely not fair. the inequities go on and on. steve, perhaps you can help me out with the second part of that question.
host: i think we lost the caller. bestride jeffrey in nevada -- let's try jeffrey in nevada. caller: republicans and democrats are on different sides of the same totem pole. you will get the same outcome. but for a guy like you, there is a change that we need and believe in. guest: i will offer up a prediction. if either obama or romney are elected, we will find ourselves in a continued state of war.
military interventions that results in hundreds of millions of enemies to this country that wouldn't otherwise exist. then i want to offer up a prediction. i think we are looking at a monetary collapse. we just cannot escape the mathematics of what we are doing. host: we have a question from twitter. >> i find it an exciting notion that the libertarian president would challenge democrats on what they are supposed to be good at, civil liberties. let's not bomb i ran. let's get out of afghanistan. let's recognize marriage
equality. let's stop the drug wars. let's repeal the patriot act. let's repeal the national defense authorization act. this is what they are supposed to be good at. challenging republicans on what they are supposed to be good at, which is dollars and cents, the paul ryan plan is going to balance the budget in 28 years, and it is incumbent on growth built into this? come on. nobody believes this. everybody understands that this has to be mutual sacrifice on the part of all of us, and i will use mutual, and i think as long as it is mutual, we will suck it up and do this. but we are going to believe we are going to do nothing and we are going to fix it?
no way. growth is going to come out of nowhere? we have got 0% interest grants. we are stagnant. the federal reserve, auditing the federal reserve. i would love to turn on the light and understand what is in the federal reserve balance sheet. how much are they buying up? how many assets are they buying? and what ever they by insulates in value, -- and whatever they buy inflates in value. host: you remember one of the previous callers that came up with something, and you get touched on some positions. how would you describe foreign policy? how should america face the
world? >> we should be the shining begin on the hill. but our military interventions, are going in, and we are determining -- we are replacing one dictator with another dictator. foreign aid is money spent on dictators. it is not spent on people in other countries. it is spent on propping up other governments. we are funding the insurgents in syria, and one-quarter of the insurgents in syria are supposed to be al qaeda. did we not do this in afghanistan? did we not bankroll osama bin laden? what we ought to have learned is that these military interventions make enemies to the united states, people who are affected by this.
these drones strikes, yes, we hit the targets, but we wipe out another quarter block. we kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians living in these countries that we are ostensibly there to help. we are just continuing to make more and more enemies. it is no surprise that the unrest in the middle east is occurring right now. i would get out of our embassies in the middle east. why are we giving targets to demonstrators that are just looking for targets in the middle east? that is not showing weakness. that is just showing we have got common sense. where is the common sense? host: our next caller, good morning to you. caller: governor johnson, i will
be voting for you even though we have some differences, but i think we need to get rid of the term third party. it creates an allusion. it is more than just another two parties, third, fourth, and fifth, and so on. in continental europe, not britain, in a country like italy, for example, every single day, whether they have ever held office or not, whenever -- whatever, the television stations and radio stations every day would give time to every political party and one of their candidates. maybe not one of federal law, but there should be one that you inform the people about who is running for political office. host: gary johnson.
guest: as a statement, i could not agree more. host: your thoughts about trade, specifically protectionism. how much? guest: i am not the tariff guy. for the most part, all of us criticizing crony capitalism. the free market's really do work. the trade really does work. who benefits if china is subsidizing their goods and services? we are in the united states, believing that any family can spend less money on goods and services, we benefit from that. who takes it on the chin?
who suffers? it is the citizens of china, and if we let these things play out, things correct themselves. this is not to say that the markets do not have bubbles, just like manipulated markets, but i think the market has a much more efficient way of dealing with bubbles that it created. so no tariffs. host: how does gary johnson feel about obamacare? you spoke about this a bit. your reaction to the supreme court. tell us more. guest: a good example of what we need for health care is a free market approach for health care. and by the way, health care is
about as removed from the free market as it possibly could be. the government restricts the choices available to us. there is no advertised pricing. when this whole debate and discussion started up over health care, i would not have health insurance to cover myself for ongoing medical need. i would have health insurance to injury and illness. and i would pay as you go in a system that is very, very competitive. i have a myriad of choices that i do not have today, because of laws that restrict the availability of choices. i will have many choices when it came to drugs. and when i make these choices and the government does not make these choices. when the whole debate and discussion started up about health care, i had a vision of a "gallbladders are us, close " health -- in ", gallbladders are us," health insurance places a
that would specializing gallbladders. at thousands of dollars as opposed to attend thousands. -- to ten thousands. this is the kind of thing that would have been possible. i think we would all pay as you go in a system that is very, very competitive. if we had a myriad of choices as opposed to no choices -- the irs is going to had 15,000 irs agents to oversee president obama's health care plan? where were the 15,000 doctors that could have actually been created? government could have and can blow the lid off of supply if they so choose. host: a time for another call for gary johnson. joe is a republican in santa fe. caller: it is good to your we still lives in red blooded,
patriotic americans. i was going to vote for mitt romney, but i would like to know were to actually make it to the seat? would you consider repealing the affirmative action bill and the civil rights bill? from what i am seeing right now, it seems like there's a backlash against the white community like obama has a war against white heritage or something. i mean, i don't understand it. host: gary johnson? guest: we should not discriminate. i think government policies in the past have gotten us to a point where i really do not see that discrimination. i am going to sign onto legislation repealing
affirmative action. i think we have moved beyond that. but i will just offer up a production again. -- a prediction again. obama, romney, who will find ourselves with a heightened police state. we will find ourselves with interventions. if we bomb iran, will find ourselves with 100 military enemies -- 100 million enemies that we did not otherwise have. -- the day sooner than later. are arguing over who should spend more money on medicare and when we should have the debate on an cutting into significantly into the program if we will have health care at all for those over 65. the notion of a health-care safety net, yes, but we have gone way over the line when it comes to the notion of who is in need in this country. host: last call from pennsylvania. hey, there. caller: listen, i like all of
your ideas. i hope that you have the chance this drone gain is really troubling. we have the drones going over all of these countries, but they will be putting them over us, too. it is not like you can just do something and it is over. we are setting itself -- ourselves up for something year. host: domestic drones, gary johnson. guest: i have a feeling double basses in domestic drones is to see what you are growing in the -- the whole basis if in domestic drones is to see what you are growing in your backyard. gosh, are those marijuana plants in your backyard? we will add to -- it is the growing police state in thisit
is getting worse, not better. legalize marijuana. we're talking about border40,000 deaths us out of the border in the last four years. these are disputes being played out with guns rather than the courts. i am in the camp that believes prohibition related, not usethat is not to discount a problems with use and abuse, but that should be the focus. insanity? i guess we are all in same -- insane. host: thank you very much for your time this morning. guest: thank you.
>> we will be going tonight to a debate with several states, and at 9:00, a 90-minute debate, focusing on domestic policy, and after the debate is over, your telephone calls, emails, and tweets. you can follow the coverage on c-span, and with the first debate, here is part of the 1984 debate between president reagan and former vice president walter
mondale. >> i want to look at an issue that has been lurking out there and look at it specifically in national security terms. you are already the oldest president, and some say you already retired after the recent issue with mondale. having to go for days on end without any sleep, john kennedy, during the cuban missile crisis. is there any question about your ability to perform? >> i will not make age an issue of this campaign. i am not going to exploit for political opponents my opponent's youth and political inexperience. [laughter]
if i still have time, i might add that it was seneca or cicero, i do not know which, which said it was not for the elders correcting the mistakes of the young, there would not be a state. >> that was october 21, 1984. a reminder that the first 2012 presidential debate takes place this wednesday from the university of denver. you can see it live on c-span, or watch it online or listen on c-span radio. today, a newspaper front page article on ross perot. the interview was recorded which the article was based on. in it, ross perot talks about the current state of the u.s. economy and how the issues he ran on in 1992 and 1996 are still relevant.
>> we are here for ross perot sr. for one of the few interviews he has given recently. >> i have been in the public eye throughout this, and there were comments about the national debt and problems that face our economy and the need to get those problems straightened out. >> do you think it has been too long since somebody like you commanded the public attention so that you could get the public to understand these sorts of issues? >> i am not in a good position to judge that. what i can say is we need to describe what has happened and what is happening and what we need to do to get this under control, and right now, everybody is dancing around it and ducking as opposed to facing it, and if you have got cancer, the first thing you want to do
is face it, right? we have got economic cancer at this point. we have got to fix it. >> that was the case in 1992 when you ran your first presidential campaign, and it was still the case when you ran your second in 1996. there was progress after that. a lot of people say that because of the campaigns you ran, we had surpluses and fought our way out of this, and now, it is worse than it was 20 years ago. >> exactly. >> how did we lose our way, compared to the late 1990's, when we fought our way out of this debt, to where we have gone from $4 trillion in debt when you were running to at $16 trillion? >> i am glad you mentioned that number. that is so big, and i hope you explain to the american people how big it is.
it is going to have a horrible impact on us and future generations if we do not deal with it now and get it taken care of. if you have cancer, you do not wait until it is over your entire body. then, it is too late to fix it. all of these things that are coming out now, to diagnose the problem, explain the problem, and hopefully we will get our people in politics, in the house and senate and white house, to deal intelligently with the problem. >> back in 1992, when mr. perot ra, -- ran, he ran on declining trust in government and confidence in the future and more. the truth is, we are in much
worse shape on all four of those issues than we were in 1992, just looking at the objective facts. george h.w. bush, 41, and william jefferson clinton, in part because of the work that ross perot did in making this very clear, simple, and compelling, made these issues a higher priority and did several things. one, imposed tough budget controls. two, did not expand entitlement benefits, and three, unchanged taxes when they saw they were irresponsible. president george walker bush, 43, and obama have done exactly the opposite. president bush 43, his term is over. president obama could change course. whoever is president needs to change course, because if we do not, the problems in europe
could happen here. >> we will go through that period of time and talk about some of the issues of 9/11 and the wars and the tax cuts and the recession of 2008, but let me take you back to 1992 first. what caused you at the time, because it will be relevant, what caused you to leave a very comfortable life, two businesses that you had founded and had done very well and that you had passed on, or one of them that you had passed on, what caused you to jump into presidential politics then? >> every generation in history has worked and sacrificed to lead a better country to their children and grandchildren and future generations. we are spending their money. we are now even much more spending their money, and we are leaving them a mess that will be very difficult to deal with, and if we are in that
week, just think of who will want to take us over, and the last thing i ever want to see is to see our country taken over because we are so financially weak that we cannot do anything, and we are moving in that direction. >> so you are thinking of countries that are buying our debts. >> we fought all over the world in world war i and world war ii. how long have we been -- >> 11 years in afghanistan. >> 11 years, and it is just getting worse, so we have got to wake up and get the right thing done for our country and our children and our future and make sure we leave a better, stronger country for future generations. do you believe in your first
campaign, that what you did, coming in third, the best party -- third-party candidacy since teddy roosevelt, did you believe you had an impulse -- impact at solving our debt picture in the 1990's? things improved vastly from 1993 through 2000. >> i do not want to take credit for it, but i am pleased there is a breathing period where we are going in the right direction. now we have heard it around and it is going through the roof and is inexcusable. what is interesting is that hardly ever gets discussed, and in the papers, on the media, you would think this is front-page news. it is not. >> absolutely no question that
his candidacy caused president clinton to make fiscal responsibility and much higher priority. no question. clinton will tell you that. people in his administration will tell you that. he made the difference even though he did not win. the polls will also tell you in july he was leading. in addition, the exit polls will tell you that the people who voted, if they thought they could have won, they would have voted for him and he would have won. much worse today than we were then, and people know it. >> do you think we're much worse today because he was not elected? >> we have lost our way. >> that is history. we're on the edge of the cliff, and we have got to start fixing it now. otherwise we are leaving a disaster to our children and
grandchildren and we could even lose our country. if we do not get fixed -- and nobody is talking about what we have to do and why we have to do it. they would prefer not to have it discussed. >> what is happening is we're still coming out of recession, so both candidates, and as president for four years, are using the necessity to dig out from recession before they get to austerity. you could argue that in europe they have tried austerity before the ink out of recession, and that did not do so much good in europe. >> if i told you i do not want to dig out a bite that problem until i go broke, you could say, what are you talking about? that is what you said. you're not on to pay your debt if he did not have the money. if things are going downhill and
you are running toward that up, you'd make it next to impossible to paint your debt. we need to put on the brakes now. it can be done if we and the house and senate and white house have the will. they should have the full support of the american people to get it done. >> you cannot dig out of a whole, and that is what they are doing. you have to climb out of a whole. in reality we face two problems. we have short-term economic challenges because we have very weak economic growth. we have high unemployment, high your under our employment, and the numbers are higher than the government tells you. we need to do something about it. it has to be coupled with a clear, credible, concrete, and enforceable plan to deal with the structural deficit lying ahead. you need to do both. that is the only thing that
makes any sense. it is the only thing that m akes sense from the standpoint of politics. >> you spoke in 1992 about the campaign, your plan sounded then a lot like some of these bowls simpson's balanced-type plants that are coming out now. you did some of everything. you did not leave out sacred cows. the one that higher taxes, higher gasoline taxes, you wanted the wealthy to pay more weather in higher taxes or not taking entitlements. do you find that willingness to day on the part of candidates to hit all the sacred cows? >> i do not see anybody doing it, do you? if somebody is doing it, i am missing it.
i thought they would hope this go away and they could run on all these things when you are talking on the television. >> would it take candidate saying you'd need to do all those things, not just going after entitlements cut domestic spending, defense, but also to raise taxes? you need to do all those things, do you feel? >> we need to do whatever it takes to solve this problem, and that probably takes all of these things. overall, you have to deal with this whole problem, and is once you have cancer, just living in denial, which is the best way to describe how we are living now, it gets worse, and that is happening every day. if you look at these charts that we have distributed over the
country, and people going from city to city, talking directly, and i can hear in my home town they will be talking in the next few days, directly to the people, and we need to get the american people alive and alert, because the typical person running for office is gone to do what ever it takes to get their vote. i do not think he has any sense at all that they want this fixed. if the bid -- if we have that at the grass-roots level, he would have these people with different personalities, being reborn, and they would beat out on the campaign trail. >> both parties are responsible for our current problems. >> yes. >> governments have lost control of budget, and has waited too long to restructure, but it is not too late. the american people are smarter than most politicians realize. they know we are tin
trouble. they're willing to accept tough choices as long as they want it to be part of a comprehensive plan that they deemed to be fair. overwhelming support for comprehensive reforms in a range of areas where everything is on the table, minimum support, 76%, up to 100%, based on six key principles that it virtually unanimous support. the president is the chief executive officer of the united states. whoever the next president is, they need to demonstrate extraordinary presidential leadership. they need to use the power of the presidency to go to the american people, as ross perot did in 1992, to build a case that we are on a burning platform, to help them understand that everything has to be on the table, to provide principles and a framework for action, and to call the first
three words of the constitution "we the people" to work with the president to solve the problem, because if you do not keep the economy strong, everything will suffer over time -- job opportunities, domestic tranquillity. >> did you feel in an 99 nepos, that we can out of our deficits, and we ran four years of surpluses, prior to 9/11 and other things that happened in the last decade. the you think we have solved our problem? -- did you think we have solved our problems? >> no, we were just lucky where goodr going to rhrough a time. now we are any time of bad luck. i would really impressed if our
president would take this issue right now and explain to the american people what he is going to do, because obviously his opponents would have to get busy, too, right? right now is like one of these things. you do not want to talk about it. >> one of the things i remember about my testimony is when i was comptroller general, was in 2001, when we had a surplus, it was burning a hole in congress' pocket, and they had 16,000 ways to spend the money, either directly or through tax rebates, and i reminded them that the surpluses that were projected by the congressional budget office was just that. they were projections. they may or may not occur. we had $20 trillion worth of liabilities and unfunded obligations that were not been
accounted for. we had known demographic trends that were going to bring us back to that in the future. today that $20 trillion is $70 trillion and growing by $10 million a minute. thinks happened totally out of control, especially since 2003. >> let's talk about a couple solutions out there. what has gotten worse of the last 20 years is this issue of tax expenditures, tax breaks, for your more courage, for your employer-paid health insurance. i think that the bowles-6 in commission said it was a $1 trillion problem. give us ideas as to what is doable there, because the big tax breaks are those that millions of americans rely on.
can those be reduced substantially? >> i do not know. i am not smart enough to know. if i were, i would tell you. >> i mean politically. if you were in office today -- >> would you say don't charge as much as you are charging today it? -- charging today put a bullet still gets deeper in debt. >> we are taking this issue head on, and what we are saying is broaden the tax base so eliminate deductions, exclusions, credits come on the individual and corporate sides, lower the top marginal rate, and i will give you four examples of preferences that would be eliminated or change. one, phase out the individual
income tax exclusion for health care. it ought to be taxed as compensation. we need to phase it out. secondly, charitable contributions. full deduction for charitable contributions because government has grown too big, waited too long to restructure. the charitable sector will become more important. mortgage interest deduction, two houses or one, one house is a need. one home, deduct maximal interest. thirdly, have some type of reasonable limits for retirement savings, but have tougher controls that locked up the money for that, disability, and retirement. those get overwhelming support. by the boy, if you can end up reducing the top marginal tax
rate, down to 25%, you can eliminate the difference between capital gains and ordinary income without having adverse effects on the economy. that will increase the effective tax rate of people who are well off at the same point in time making it a simpler system. right now we have 46.4% of americans who do not pay any income tax at all. the poverty rate is 15.9%. i do not know what the right number is for people who should not have to pay income tax, but the income taxes from all the constitutional roles of the federal government -- you cannot have 46% getting a free ride, and the people understand that and support that change as well. let's debate what that number is. it is lower than 46%, but we need to have a progressive system. >> one of the things that has changed since 1992 is baby boomers were moving toward their
retirement. now they are into it. we have the baby-boom generation, when birthrates are at their high estimates are in their mid 60's, started taking social security a few years ago at 62. now they are starting to take medicare. what does that mean to you in general, that we will go through 20 or 30 years of those people moving through the years of their lives when they are entitled to social security, medicare, and other things? what does that mean in terms of your grandchildren's generation? >> we need to start correcting all of that now and not let it continue. it may occur for a while the matter but i do, but the sooner we start correcting it, the sooner we get that out of the way. we do not do anything. the point is we are in denial.
we need to get out of denial and focus on what we need to do and do it and keep the american people fully informed every step of the way so they know why we did this and what we did that and so on and so forth. but them feel they know they are directly involved, because we're trying to get their money. >> it is a matter of public education, and that is where groups like dave's and other organizations that are trying to beat the drums to get americans to understand what is going on, is that what you feel is most important, educational? >> the first thing, and our country, if i had three wishes -- a strong, moral, ethical base. i had that growing up in the depression. a strong family unit in every home. now the divorce rate is over 50%, right? that is destabilizing. when i grew up in the depression of all times, we had the finest
public schools in the world and the one thing a democracy must have is a well-educated population. our public schools are at the bottom of the industrialized world. that is the country. the great state of texas, where i went to schools and had an incredible education, is either 47 or 40 night in the 50 states. that is all our responsibility and we can correct that, but with these problems we face now, that is so fundamental about what we must do now, and we cannot pass that off to a house or senate or the state or the federal government. we have to do a lot of that by being involved. >> if you look at our fiscal issues, and if you look at the dimensions of it, it is not just economic. we are mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren at record rates, while we are
reducing investment in their future at the time that they are going to face and a lot tougher competition in an increasingly interdependent world. that is irresponsible, and ethical, immoral, and it must stop. at the same point in time, how you solve this problem involves important economic, ethical, and moral questions as well. we have to recognize that reality. the clock is ticking. the fuse has been lit. time is not working in our favor, and we better start making progress, and we better get a good fiscal bargained in 2013 or what that is happening in europe can happen here. >> let me give you an example. go to our most elite engineering schools. at one time we had more talented engineers than anybody else. we were discovering everything in the world, producing it here. now that has all turned around.
it is getting worse by the day. 78% of the people getting elite engineering schools either come from china or india, ok? now, 20% come from all over the wall. i am up to 98%. that means 2% of the people getting ph.d.'s are coming from the united states, in our most complete engineering schools. that is a recipe for disaster. we do not ever talk about it. we're just letting the thing unraveled. what about best new engineering schools, which you will be hearing about in a few days, in dallas, and they have a great school, but guess what -- i asked them onetime how many people they have from china, and this university right here,
2000, added to the top. >> this is an example of how we need to modernize our immigration policy and how we need to change education policy alice well. immigration policy is based on family relationships. it is not based on economic considerations, skills and knowledge. while we need to revitalize education for americans, we need to recognize the extent to which people are coming to america to learn we need to do what we need to do to keep them in america. , this is our core problem. there trillions of connections in the brain called neurons. they start down at age 6 when they start public school. kids at a school soared like eagles, got college scholarships, they got wired.
when you know this and you do not talk about it and do not do anything about it, this is another recipe for disaster. our public education system is just really got to be strained out. the teachers' unions are primarily concerned about how much they make a year, and that is not where the concern has to be. it is making sure that children have the fun in education that are needed for education -- have the funds in education that are needed for education. >> we spend double per person to educate k through 12, double other nations. we do the same thing in health care. we get below-average results. when you get below-average results, the answer is not to throw more money at the system. it is to read engineer the system. during more money at a system that is getting those kinds of
results is called in sanity. >> it is all about politics. the teachers' unions give money to the guide that is going to take care of them. argue with me? -- argue with me? -- are you with me? when you look at the chinese and see how bright they are, and they have a huge population, 1.2 billion. that is a giant population. we have 310 million. the sheer size of their population, it is interesting they are getting the best- educated people because of a number of symbols you have to learn about all these other things, and we know what we have to do. we just do not do it.
my advice would be, if i have an opportunity, let's quit talking about it and just do it. >> you had said when you were comptroller general tried to call attention to this problem, the problem of running deficits and accumulating greater debt, that the country had a budget deficit, a trade deficit, a balance of payments deficit, and the fourth one you brought up was a leadership deficit. >> leadership is the greatest. >> can i ask you both, describe what is the problem with what appears to be in your mind a leadership deficit, that we're not getting the leadership on this key issue either from this president or past presidents, this congress or pass congress aes/ what does it take to get elected officials to tackle at an issue, increasing their taxes? >> let's start with the
families. they will get their attention. the voters have to understand all this, which they did not, and voters need to understand what we have to do to get all this corrected, and they do not. if we ever get that over to the voters, they will vote for the people who are geared up, ready, and know how to do it and are running on that basis, and then we can change this country forever and get us back to where we used to be when i was a boy in the depression. why schoolteachers and would have been doctors, lawyers, indian chiefs today. with luck they were making $200 a month, but they were talented, they brought out the best in all of us. they were by example really fine people, and with the highest qualities. all that got transmitted to the children at class a even if they were not getting it at home.
>> when you were running you were talking about increasing not necessarily dollars per capita, but investing in education, communications, and transportation. even while trying to reduce deficits and debt, you were talking about the need for certain targeted investments. do you feel that is still true today? >> olney you have to look at and see if district today. -- all you have to do is to look at it and see that it is true today. as long as that goes on, kids are lost. >> we need short-term investments, but they need to be properly designed and the effect of the implemented. recent ones have not banned, but they have to be coupled with the concrete and forcible plan to deal with such structural to facets.
we need policy reforms, operational reforms, and we need political reforms. on the political side, our country today is dominated by special interests, by the duo poly of political policies, and toward politicians who may or may not have had a real job in their lives, but once elected, they want to keep it. congress works three days a week, and it does not work that many days any year. it does not get paid for performance. if it did, it would owe us money. we need to have redistricting reform, integrated and open primaries, campaign finance reform, and we need to have term limits, 12- to 18-year term limits. the fis has been lit. what we need is two things --
extraordinary leadership from the president of the united states, whoever that is. we need these debates to be more specific, substantive, on these issues so the people can make an informed judgment about who to support and so that whoever wins will have a mandate to act, and then they need to lead. the president is not just the commander in chief. the chief executive officer of united states. this country is in terrible condition and we are losing grant every day. -- to ground every day. >> they are not doing anything. >> dave mentioned duopoly. established a third party, united we stand and the reform party. do you feel that is needed today, that there is something wrong with that two-party system which has gotten more
acrimonious, each party back on their 10-yard line? >> any way that can be done, it is almost impossible to do it. it would be a very healthy thing if you could get it done and make it happen, but it is very difficult to do and very few people would want to try to put it there, because they know they are going to be butchered from day one. much of the media will persist -- will participate actively in that. you have to talk about the politicians. the media has strong views. >> it is hard to get somebody like dave walker willing to put their name out there and run in 50 states and withstand the media scrutiny and the like? >> if you ran for either party, it would be all right. if he created a new party, that would be very difficult. i can promise you, because have a huge number of special interests hammering away.
>> also, when you did it, you put tens of billions of dollars of your own money into it. today it would take hundreds of millions of dollars of your own money. i wonder whether anyone -- do you think if you were a 62-year- old man today, could you replicate in today's politics with unlimited spending by corporations and unions, could you replicate what you did then at the dollar level? >> if you got the dollars, but you could not get the open- minded look at what you are doing as opposed to everybody at attacking the fact that you are eating trying. -- you are even trying. that is the way things have been, the way things are, and how can you change that? i do not know. if i knew, i of would certainly tell you. >> finance reform.
>> we have got to get a clean up. >> there is nothing to prevent the congress and the president today from passing a law that would require full and timely disclosure of contributions to these superpacs and others. the supreme court scission did not do that. they are working for themselves and their party. what we need is campaign finance reform. i will give you a simple principle, that the people who can contribute directly or indirectly are people who can vote. news flash -- corporations and unions cannot vote. it is a simple principle, one of the ones we are exposing to the public, and they overwhelmingly endorsed it. most of these areas -- it is very common sense. that is what the american people respond to. that is not how our politicians treat us.
that is part of the problem. >> don't you think it is interesting in all of these really tough times, we have talked all about these big numbers, that the house, the sense, and the white house did not reduce their salaries? think about it. in thek theyank should? >> if you were in business, you would have to. they need to set the first example of making the cut back for themselves. >> leading by example. >> exactly. >> is a fundamental principle, especially in business. we need more of that. >> how close do you think we are to a crisis? people say the deficit and debt issue will get resolved when
they have to resolve a, not when they should resolve it. do you think we're close to a market crisis? to bond buyers of not investing in the united states' debt -- will that happen one of these years? >> of course. it is as common sense. we're not talking about politicians, where talking about people taking money out of their pocket at one time, considering it was the safest investment could make, a treasury bill, right? and now i have every reason to be concerned whether it will last or how long? --. >> we are living in a dream world right now. there is no such thing as an entitlement. the supreme court said there are two things that under the constitution, are guaranteed. number one, military pensions,
and, number two, bond holders of u.s. debt. the u.s. will not default on its sovereign debt, but there is a huge interest rate risk, and if you are a foreign investor, there's a huge currency risk in investing in. all the new debt in the last two years has been purchased by the federal reserve, up 70% of that, we are self-dealing in our and debt. we did not have market rates. we have artificially low rates. china, japan, opec nations, because they have positive trade values, but if they buy a 30- year bond? no, they are buying short term, because we have historically low interest rates, the lowest maturity in interest -- in history, and when the interest rates go up, for everyone% increase, it is $160 billion a year in new spending for which we get shinola -- nothing.
and now up to 5% below average interest rates. >> isn't it interesting that not more people talk about it on television, and the candidate do not spend much time talking about this. it is just like being in denial. >> we did not go through the decade of george w. bush and the last four years of rock obama, but what they have had to deal with, in fairness, is 9/11, a couple of wars that require a lot of spending, the tax cuts of george bush -- i am not sure where you stood on those, but they did eat into the amount of money we had to spend -- and then the recession, which was some say close to a depression. did that time prevent us from
being able to make deficits and debt a top priority? >> it should not have. it could have, but it should not have come out if people were thinking clearly, if they were well educated, if they even understood this whole damn thing, which they do not. if you say what percentage of the american people understand this, i would say it is a very low number. it to be everybody, and everybody should say this is my country. people should be very active about not letting anything damaged our country. the one thing we have not mentioned at all, there is no question at all in my mind, if we keep going this way, some nation is going to head over here to take us. if they did, they have picked the right time, right? i wish every american with the
about that, all day, every day, saying we cannot let that happen. we have the greatest country, we have got to get it back there, and we need to keep it there and make it better, not worse. that should be our goal. every year we should look back and say things have gotten a lot better, even after our ideal. we want to still make it better. >> used a word that is commonly used, that the same problem. it's called sar. have not -- it is called war. we have not declared war since world war ii. we are not following the constitution of the united states. in 2003, things really spun out of control fiscally. three things happened. they were irresponsible individual, collectively they were reprehensible.
the second round of tax cuts. said dimick, we invaded a sovereign nation without declaring war and without paying for it, called iraq. thirdly, medicare prescription drugs was expanded, added $8 trillion in new unfunded sees when medicare was already underfunded $20 trillion. since then we have stimulus programs that are not properly designed and the effectively implemented. we passed for will care act to cover 30 million more people. government today is 24% of the economy, 12 times bigger than 100 years ago, and it is headed to 37% on autopilot. these people live in a dream world. quotes.e read you two
democrats and republicans blame each other. nobody steps up to the plate and accept responsibility for anything. this city, washington, d.c., we're giving a national press club speech from this city has become a town of media stunt man who posture, creek images, talk, she got off roman candles, but do not accomplish anything. i am wondering if you think you could utter them today in 2012 and they would make just as much sense? has anything improved in the dealings of republicans, democrats, white house, congress, give you -- >> we still have the same problems. that is why everything is going downhill, and that is what we have to correct it. like a guy drinking, sooner or later he has got to put a cork
in the bottle. he is in denial. it is not that serious, it is not that serious. you have to have the will to do it, and i have said if you had the will as a nation, not congress, not the ordinary -- if the ordinary citizen had that will and could not be jerked around the way we try to manipulate him, we would get this all straightened out. >> there is no question that we are worse today than we were in 1992. washington has total gridlock. the american people are not disheartened. they are disgusted. they are disgusted with that lack of progress on a long list of growing problems, energy problems, environmental problems. our health-care system, our tax system. our regulatory policies. washington has taken another
five-week vacation. it took a five-week vacation in august, worked two weeks, taking another five-week vacation. if these people did a better job, they would not have to take some much time off to campaign, raising money, because if they did a good job, people will reward you. when you do not do a good job, you have to spend a lot more time doing that. >> de you think we would be better off with a parliamentary system, where one party to control things for a time, and we did not have to deal with a republican house, a senate of democrats, so we are always at this gridlock? we kind of let the supreme court make the decision because the politicians cannot do it. >> we need to work at bath, but i have no idea how, because as you know, that is the way it is. it is human nature to maintain the status quo until the things
get terrible. then people get flexible. that is the worst time to solve the problem. the best time to solve a problem is when your temperature goes up when the great. he did not wait until it has gone up 20 degrees and realized i have something we cannot fix. that is the same problem in our country. we keep putting it off. the media is participating in this, not trying to discipline it in any way, because it is all news, not good news, but they keep people they're sitting the television. that is not enough. what we do, and i would again one more time say if we do not get the strain that, somebody will take us, and that is the last thing any of us want, and i will keep saying that until, hopefully the nation or somebody say we will not let that happen. >> on the parliament terry
system, that would take a constitutional change -- on the parliamentarian system, that would take a constitutional change. the party that controls the parliament also controls government, and then you have more of an ability to get things done. but you also have fewer checks and balances. other countries basis in problems we're talking about in the 1990's. they happen to be parliamentarians systems, but you have to have public education and engagement, extraordinary leadership from the president, and you have to have the first three boards of the constitution come alive -- "we the people" -- to work with the president, the house, and the senate, to take control.
if they do not, throw them out. >> we have had some times since 1992 when we had an uprising. some people give you credit for the republican revolution of 1994, because it was the republicans under newt gingrich who adopted a lot of your tactics and positions. then it was recently we had tea party movement. that was a movement within a political party. do you think it takes that kind of a movement? i am wondering what your thoughts were when the tea party revolution rose up in 2009? >> interesting to see that happen. i was surprised. it has had an interesting impact, don't you think? >> yes, interesting. >> not the solution, but it was
a healthy thing to happen. >> that shows that average americans are -- >> it wakes up a lot of american citizens. >> my personal view is that he party and the occupy movement had a lot in common. because they are both concerned with a lack of integrity and accountability. in the case of the tea party, they are concerned with the lack of accountability in government. in the case of occupy, is wall street, and guess what -- they are both right. >> he summed it up beautifully. >> when you were running, it was a matter of people getting to call into an 800-number. now we're into this world of social media, where you can tweet something out in a matter of seconds. do you think that would make a
third-party iran or any kind of a people's movement easier today than it was 20 years ago when you had to rely on people calling in to a phone number? do you think the computer revolution, which you have been involved since the start, and in particular at the social media revolution of the last several years, should create a situation where you are on twitter, where you can mobilize people more easily? >> sure. >> shouldn't that make the type of solution you are talking about, people demanding change, similar to have? >> that is what we need, and i think that is a good way to do it. >> the problem would be they have the tools today to .nstantly to mobilize h you are saying they do not have the education to know in which
direction to go? they're not being educated about the degree of the problem in terms of how deeply into annual deficits and debt we are? >> absolutely no question that social networking, facebook, twitter, provide an opportunity to reach a lot more people a lot quicker than was in the case in 1992. >> i know you are writing a book. your autobiography coming out in a few months. why now? >> people wanted me to do it, so i agreed, and people -- and it will be coming out shortly. it is all about these things we have talked about today, as well as other things. i hope it will be useful for the people to get informed and
understand that we the people own this country, and we the people have any responsibility to get these things straightened out. and leave our children and grandchildren a much better nation rather than just letting it fall apart. it also helps to have the best public schools in the world, which we did not have any more. it will take a while paired right now, it is important to try to make sure we get all of our people actively involved in understanding these problems. included in the book is an updated set of charts that show all of the fiscal problems of our country. you get that free with a book. they fit into the book. >> why don't you show them that
beautiful cover? >> i do not know where it is. >> i can grab it right here. >> this is the book coming out, and it will be coming out here pretty soon, but i hope it will be useful to the american people to understand how important they are to the future of this country, and we the people can determine who are leaders are, and we the people must select the right leaders. once we have them in office, keep in close contact with them, so they do not wandering around to special interests. >> you have had a remarkable life, and you have been involved not only in your businesses, but in terms of being p.o.w.'s back from overseas, your involvement in public education. since we're focusing in this he interviewed on their
presidential campaigns and the issues of deficit and debt, where do you make that portion of your life in terms of your legacy, in terms of your achievement? how do you look at that time when you decided annual deficits and accumulated debt or important enough you would put your name out there and run in all 50 states? >> i did not get done what i wanted to do. that has not happened yet, and this is my last big effort here. this will cover it again. >> de you agree, dave, that you think he is being too humble? , he is being very modest. he is the biggest philanthropist in the united states that people did not know about because he does most things anonymously. he is a perfect example of when he ran in 1992, he was running to make a difference. he put his own money out there, he made the difference, because
the issue of fiscal responsibility became a top priority to the clinton administration. they took a number of steps to restore fiscal sanity. we had four years of unified surpluses, but we have lost our way since then. it started in 2003. that is when i spoke out at the national press club, and if has only gotten worse since. he is reiterating with his book, with new updated charts, and we are trying to help make sure the public has the facts, and can be involved in solving this problem. >> they are the key to the solution, because they are the voters. >> do you plan to be out there frequently, in terms of your involvement with the comeback america initiative, but also when the book comes out, will you take a full book tour? >> i do not have anything planned. we will have to plant something
for the book -- we will have to plan something. >> you are not reticent to get out there? a couple times to they use it for somebody to take on the talents that you took on, they would have to have thick skin, and you talk about how other politicians and the media will come after somebody like that. have reseeded from public view in recent years, but are you -- from publicceded view in recent years. >> i will do what ever i have to. >> ross perot has dedicated to the mission. is about the mission, not about him. it is about the country. it is about his kids, and is about his grandkids and future generations.
that is what it is about. >> i want them to have the opportunities i had to. i was covered up with parents who loved me, but i felt i was rich because of them. i then went on and had the great opportunities and got into the naval academy. that was a great experience in learning leadership at the finest level and getting to practice it for 80 years in the navy. -- for 8 years in the navy. i was lucky to get in the computer business, and i had all these ideas that ibm was not interested in, and i started my own company. it all worked out, because people bought computers but could not use them. they could not make the software. we would sell the whole thing, a completely finished package, hardware, software, and that
went on all over the world, and sold that off to general motors of all places. then started a new company and that was barry successful also. it is now -- and that was a very successful also. >> it is now part of dell. >> the presidential campaign, when you look back, you could say why why i did what i did in terms of my public education, man military service. whatever made me decide for run for president? >> those other things were more rational. that was something we stuck with. it is human nature. people vote, and if you do not have a well-educated population, it is less rational. if we could ever get back to a block-educated population, people would do a much better job at the ballot box. >> do you think if we had a
perot administration, things would be different today in terms of our fiscal picture? >> i would have made every effort. i would have had to deal with the two parties day in and day out, but in that job i could have gone directly to the american people for their support. once you actually had that, you would probably get them to agree to anything, including a bad idea. i would not want to have done, but it is really important. someone asked to -- if he stood for anything, and he looked and said as a young man, i stand for reelection. >> the answer to that question is yes, because he would not just have focused on the short term. he would have also focused on the structural problem.
our problem is not the current deficits and debt, although they are shockingly high. the problem is what is not on the balance sheet that is many times greater. that is the real problem. you have to solve that problem as well. in addition, ross perot has an incredible ability to communicate, and no hesitancy to go directly to the american people with these issues. coming back to what we talked about before, that is what we need from our president. we have to rally the public around the fact we have no choice but to make these tough choices. we are going to solve these problems. the issue -- where we saw that prudently and preemptively, or we will wait until the market forces us to do, which will be a global depression, much higher unemployment, draconian reductions and tax
increases. >> and then the risk of another nation taking us over. that should be in everybody's part of their brain. >> i sense you are an equal- opportunity critical of both parties, in congress, and both gentlemen running for president. is that the case? are you aligning result one way or the other? >> the way it operates now is not going to be successful. >> to be clear, you were saying you're not supportive of how much effort the president or mitt romney have put into this so far? you are saying you're not a fan missions? one's >> it is more than just that. it is their teens who work with
them. they have not come up with something that works. , neither candidate right now has a comprehensive plan that meets the six principles we're talking about with the public. in the case of the president, he does not have a plan because his plan is his budget, but his budget which rejected unanimously by the senate and house, so he has to start over again. in the case of romney, he has a plan, he has not provided enni'' specifics, and specific he has provided, the numbers did not add up pit that is what it is important but of them to be more specific, more substantive, were solutions oriented in the debates so we can make an informed torres about who to support, so they can claim they have a mandate, and they can use the bully pulpit to go to the people to talk about what we have been talking about and that
people can then be involved to help get us a fiscal board and next year. it is critically important. >> will you be watching these debates? >> oh, yeah, i'll watch them. >> what do you think about when you see these debates that have happened since then? >> well, not much. just maneuvering back and forth. >> not as cover more -- not as colorful. >> will we see a third-party candidacy, a new ross perot on the horizon in 2016 to take something like that? >> i am to all to do it now. >> you have sons and daughters and grandchildren. >> i am too old to do it. >> will somebody, d you think it
would help someone else ran that type of campaign? >> if we get the right person, but they will do everything they can to butchered them. the media is pretty cooperative with that, too. >> thank you. i appreciate you talking to us. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> in about an hour, we will go to nebraska as bob kerrey debates deb fischer. it starts like tonight at 8:00 eastern. you can also listen on c-span2 radio or watch live thaat c- also tonight, mitt romney is get to speak tonight at 9:15 eastern. his comments will be live on c-
span2. a look ahead to tomorrow and live coverage of the texas senate debate with republican ted cruz and pa of mr. hutchins. that will be live from dallas on c-span. more campaign 2012 coverage with the senate debate between scott brown and a democratic challenger, elizabeth warren. it is their second of four televised debates. i live now to the university of massachusetts. -- live up now to the university of massachusetts. -- live now to the university of massachusetts. >> moderator of meet the press and welcome to the center of
massachusetts co-sponsored by the university and the boston herald. i am joined by the two candidates, miss elizabeth warren and a senator scott brown. welcome to both of you. a thank you for being here. just a note about the rules, basically there are none. no set time limits. what i hope is a healthy discussion of the important issues facing this country and in this race. champion the-- i to a few -- the two of you. i would like to begin where it seems this campaign has been, in the area of the personal. some personal friction and issues between the two of you. ms. warren, i want to start with questions about your native american heritage. there seems to be a lot of
questions about this. i want to see if we can clear these things up. you have listed yourself as a minority in a faculty directory in 1986. you continue to miss -- to list yourself in that directory until 1995. do you consider such a minority? and if not, is there any other reason for some kind of benefit that you list yourself in such a directory? >> i have answered this question many, many times. it starts the fact from the dow was born until the day my mother died, if she told me -- it starts at the fact of from the day i was born until the dimon mother died, she told me who we are and my family. i have never used the information about our native american heritage to get any advantage. not to apply to college, not to apply to law school, and not to get hired for any job. i was -- i listed myself as native american. i was listed there.
it is part of why am. >> you consider yourself a minority? >> i consider myself as having a native american background. >> senator brown, you have a web site created by your campaign that says we are getting to know the real as a bit of warren. if it allows people to check whether she is a hypocrite or a fake indian. who is the real elizabeth warren? is she a liar? is that your judgment? >> you'd have to ask her who she actually is. i think we need to reflect back and talk about this campaign is really about, which is obviously the jobs in the economy. part of this race is also integrity and character. if you look back and see what we are talking about here, no one is questioning what her parents told her when she was younger or through that timeframe. when she was asked by "the boston herald" why she was being
towed to as a native american, she said she did not know. and then after misleading the papers, she said that she self- reported. she never answered why she said that. she has also said that as time goes on, i cannot change of who i am. that is the nature of her commercials. but as with noticed -- as we noticed throughout life, she was white. then she changed her nationality to native american. as she was being considered for recruitment as a result of that director, she was being recruited to ivy league schools. at the pinnacle for success when she became tenured at harvard, she was changed back to being white. when she says she cannot change who she is, she did it twice. >> if you have any evidence, at all, senator, if to suggest that ms. warren benefited or was hired because she was a native
american minority? >> the real issue is what is she telling the people. >> that was a direct question. if you suggested that she is being dishonest. i want to know if -- >> the best way to answer that is for her to release her personnel records. i released 32 years of my military records. i think the fact that she has not least those records of speaks volumes. >> are you hiding something? >> no, i am not. the questions about character, i answer the questions about how i was born and what i learned growing up. i never use it for college, law school, or to get a job. others have backed me up. the boston globe interviewed two dozen people on this. they said in print that he voted for scott brown. it would not know about it until years later. i want to say something about character, since that is the issue. i think character is how you live your life. and the daughter of a janitor
who ended up as a professor at harvard law school and working for the president of united states, i am proud of the two children i have raised and the husband i have had for 32 years and by three grandchildren. i have taught school. i have taught a generation of students. hello, occasionally, inspired a few of them. i have -- but i hope, occasionally, inspired a few of them. >> have you model this issue in the campaign? >> i wish i had been faster in answering the question. but the truth is the truth. i believe my mother. i cannot imagine what kind of test of character would be to say that my mother lied to me from the day i was born until the day she died. >> senator, is this disqualifying? >> no, of course not.
there is no question she is a qualified academic and a good teacher. >> do you doubt in any way her credentials as a scholar that would have led her to be hired? >> no. but i do question the fact that she misled the voters off for over five weeks, saying that she had no idea how harvard came to know that she was a native american. she, in fact, self-reported. no one is questioning what our parents tell us as we are growing up. as you grow older, you have an affirmative obligation when you are making a disclosure, such as that, when you're taking something that is really meant for somebody who has been truly disadvantaged by years of discrimination, i think it is something you really need to double check on. >> on this point that senator brown is now raising, it is wrong. i misheard a question at a very noisy press conference. i came back and answer it when i
understood it. and that is it. to try to turn this into something bigger is just wrong >> let me ask you, senator brown, because a question of your own credibility has been raised. you talked about having secret meetings with kings and queens and crime ministers. your campaign said he misspoke, but this is something you said on multiple occasions. are you guilty of exaggeration here? >> no. i was trying to make a point that we're talking about the economic issues in other countries, and you have met a lot of the same people i have met. they talk about jobs and the economy and the fact that the number one thing we need to focus on is jobs in the economy. i never met the poorest performer, either. it is about presenting -- the either.of formefarmer,
let me talk about mistakes. i have made mistakes. before i got elected, i said my daughters are available on national tv. that was a pretty big mistake. i am still paying for that one. the difference between i make a mistake, i corrected. i immediately corrected. professor warren, when she made a mistake and misled the voters of massachusetts, it is not that she did not hear the question. this went on for five weeks of the media asking her specifically how they came to know that she was a native american. >> he always ask you professor warren. you think he is trying to cast you as an elitist professor in the eyes of the voters? does that bother you? >> it does not bother me. i worked very hard for this and it does not bother me. >> the boston globe reported she is proud of being a professor. whenever i see my professors from school, i say hello professor so-and-so.
she has earned the title. she is a sitting professor. >> you have both earned work as attorneys. you have talked about clients who have represented. you have released a list of those clients that have come on. senator brown, to my knowledge, you did not. >> i resisted about a week ago. in a real estate attorney representing small banks. >> as far as i'm aware, in terms of the lawyers that i know, and i know quite a few, legal work entails becoming an advocate for clients, not necessarily an advocate for a particular policy position. is there a reason you should doubt the other base and declines you represented? >> let's start with that disclosure part spirit i have not seen a list of senator brown's clients. all i know is that senator brown said at a conference last week that somehow over the last 25 years will he has been out there working in the public interest
and representing people here in massachusetts that he also is representing banks and mortgage companies. but i have not seen a list of those clients and i did not realize it had been made public. is that right? there's a public list of all the clients that sender brown had and the work he did? >> professor, with all due respect, the only person is required to provide a list is you when you got to provided on a yearly basis to harvard. when asked there is a list, you said, no, there is no list. she is apparently released it tonight. i made it very clear last week. if people know that i'm a real estate attorney. there is an office in my home. i represent a few small banks. i want to talk about clients. it is important. you ask if it is important. it is. the routine that professor warren has been saying
throughout this campaign, she is out there representing the little guy. she is out there representing the workers. there is a company that she represented in an effort to deny union workers there benefits. she got paid a five figure salary. she was on the side when no one was watching. she chose to side with the steel conglomerate. she got it almost one-quarter of a million dollars to represent a large insurance company, one of the largest in our country. she will say she was setting up a trust. there is no way a travelers insurance is going to set up a trust and work for the victims when, in fact, they are paying her as a hired gun. >> have you released what exactly you did for those clients? >> i already said it publicly. i do not know how much more public i have to get.
in the real estate attorney. i do closing. i also work with the army. >> here is my follow-up question. do you believe that, as an advocate, as an attorney, she was actually adopting the positions as she took four or was she making an argument on behalf of a klein, just as you would do as an attorney. there is a distinction. >> that is a great question. when the lights are not on and the media is not looking, you have a choice. she had the choice to take this client. she got paid almost one quarter of a million. >> you're not suggesting lawyers agree with every client they take on. is that fair? >> in this particular instance -- >> it is a pointed question. >> i think attorneys have a choice. they can deny them. >> ms. warren, your response, please. >> how to start with what senator brown is trying to do
here. he just keeps making charges. he just keeps making charges. let's start with the question about the cases that he says i have represented. i am a teacher. i have been out there as a consumer advocate. i've been writing books. i have been working in a field. from time to time have taken on a client. i have done it because there was an important legal issue at stake. for me, it was about protecting individuals. was about protecting employees. it was about protecting homeowners. it was about making sure people did not get run over by banks and the system really continue to work for them. that is what i did. i have done it through -- i did it with senator kennedy for 15 years. i wrote the books and i even went to the united states supreme court. for senator brown to say that my work hurts asbestos victims is
just simply not only not true, it is in exactly the wrong direction. i have been working for asbestos victims of for years. including going to the nine state supreme court to try to protect a half a billion dollar judgment for them and to try to make sure there is a system set up so that people who have asbestos-related diseases, which continue to show up year after year gets in someone's body, they do not know for sure whether they have it or not, until sometimes years later -- a way for those people to be compensated. the asbestos victims have stood up and said, senator brown is wrong. and he has crossed a line. these are the people whose fathers have died, whose uncle is have died, whose cousins have died, and the day are the ones who are being attacked by senator brown now.
>> as a consumer activist, was it a mistake to take on these corporate clients? >> absolutely not. i would do it again because what i was out there doing was trying to help protect the asbestos victims. the asbestos workers and know that. the lawyers for the asbestos victims have described senator brown's charges as deliberately dishonest. even the boston globe has described of them as misleading. i was out there working for asbestos victims. if i had the chance, i would do it again. >> with all to respect, a travelers insurance co. is not going to pay a quarter of a million dollars to be a hired gun to work for the victims. that is a laughable. >> can we stay on the question? this was an insurance company
obverses an insurance company. two insurance companies were fighting. if one of them won, then the asbestos victims would have a chance to get another half billion dollars in payments and there would be a device to pay them overtime. >> once again, with all due respect, the victims of the asbestos cases, 1/40 of what she got paid. it is laughable to think that she was working for the victims to set up a trust. a lot of them have not been paid to this debate. let's assume that she is correct on the asbestos matter. the other one is a whole different situation. in a union member. there's only one person in this race that has been fighting for union issues and that is made. if she had an opportunity to side with the little guy. and actually worked. once again come when the lights
were not a shining and people were not watching, she made a choice to side with the conglomerate and got paid a five at the figure salary to deny the health care benefits. >> a final point on this. >> senator brown, once again, is making things up. the reality is that in the case of the poll company that he is talking about here and a black long, that everyone was going to get paid. it was a question of protecting a particular legal principle, but everyone was going to get paid. let's be clear. senator brown is the one who is not working with the unions. the unions have endorsed me. the asbestos workers said i was on their side, not as senator brown. the coal workers said i was on their side, not senator brown. he cannot change the fact. >> 1 follow. when she was advocating for that, if that legislation --
that ever did not prevail. had she prevailed, they would have unraveled the benefits. >> making up things up again. >> i want to talk about national politics here. i can tell you, living in washington and traveling around the country, i think you both know here in massachusetts, there is such a disgust with washington because of dysfunction and washington does not work. the question about bipartisanship here, senator, let me ask you this. you said a mitt romney that he is one of your strongest and earliest backers. he said it comes to dealing with the economic issues, there is no one i would trust more than governor romney. would you be a reliable ally of a president romney? >> i think he pointed out in your initial comment about this functionality in washington. when i went down there, i thought it was dysfunctional. when i got there, it was even worse. it still is. if you see it everyday.
in speaking to the independent voters of massachusetts and being that independent of voice. i spoke about 50% with my party and 50% with the other party. that is a lot different than what professor warren would do. i need not work for anybody. i cannot work for president obama, mitt romney, mitch, harry reid -- i work for the people of massachusetts. i am named the least partisan senator and united states senate. >> it is striking the youth support governor running for president, i assume. >> as i said, when it comes to dealing with the economic issues, absolutely. >> you would be a reliable ally? >> it depends on with the issue is. >> on his economic plan. you said there's no one better. >> i also would like to read the bill. because i do. a lot of people to not to read the bills. i want to vote.
i am a reliable vote for the bill. that is evidenced by my voting record. >> it is striking that we look to your campaign ads, is president obama that you see touting your work. we could not find any instance with you with governor romney having made any campaign appearances with him. there is an appearance york distancing yourself from governor romney to appeal to voters, specifically here in massachusetts. being " -- being too close to him may be a problem. [applause] >> as you know, in the second- most bipartisan member. i take pride in that. i was also proud to stand with him when we did the hiring veterans bill. of course, i will stand with the president. when he does something well, i praise him. >> you are not assessing yourself from governor romney?
>> he is all over the country. i am here in massachusetts. when i said he will head of the economic issues as well, we certainly need to focus on his economic issues. in a $16 trillion national debt we have runaway deficits each and every year. we need to have the people down there and focus in a bipartisan matter. we do not need blood and teeth in the streets. we need people will find solutions. >> in this state, the legacy of senator kennedy is well known. part of that legacy is being able to compromise and work with republicans. can you name republicans in the senate that you are able to work with on big issues that the country faces? >> probably richard would be one that comes to mind. >> not going to be there. >> that is a problem. >> let me ask the question.
are there any republicans that will be in the senate that you fill you can work with substantively and compromise with? >> it depends on what the subject matter is. let me give you an example. on the question of fannie and freddie -- fannie mae and freddie mac. the republicans have said across the spectrum that we need to revise fannie and freddie. i think there are wrong. at the that is an issue i think i could work with virtually every republican in the united states senate because it is an important issue for financing mortgages of people across this country. that is something i can do. i have actually had experience working across the aisle. when i first went to washington during the financial crisis in 2008, i was the head of a bipartisan commission. republicans and democrats. we took on some of the most difficult and challenging issues facing the country. we made reports and
recommendations every 30 days. i am very proud to say that about half of our recommendations were unanimous we started with a basic principle -- were unanimous. we start with a basic principle we could agree on. we work from there to build something that was useful. at the end of the day, the reason i'm in this race is not about partisanship. it is about working families. i will work with anyone -- democrat, republican, libertarian, vegetarian, if they will work for the american family. >> what will be one of your first vote -- one your first votes would be to cast a vote for a majority or minority leader. would you vote for mitch mcconnell to be the leader of the republicans? >> our like to respond to what you said. >> a simple yes or no question. >> off our like to have a chance to respond and i will answer
your question. with regard to working with somebody, was working with any person on opposite side of the aisle, she cannot reference one person except someone who is retiring. a truly bipartisan person i. i have a history of working across the aisle. 54% with my party. professor warren would be 100%. when it comes to dealing with the majority or minority leader, i wanted to be clear to mitch mcconnell that i am disgusted as to what is going on down there. he has a lot of work to do to earn my vote. i do not vote for him or harry reid. when i walked in i can vote however i want. you've seen it. you have evidence of it. there is no evidence that professor warren would be a voting and working across the aisle. very few members of the
democratic party right now do it. thank goodness we have people like me and others like me. senators know, senator lugar. there are other people down there who can actually get things done. >> undecided. >> i have made it very clear. >> i would like to say two things. when senator brown talks here in massachusetts about how very bipartisan he is and how very independent he is, he is sure not say the same thing when it goes around the country raising money in the senate. [applause] he goes around this country and what he says to people around the country is that they should contribute to his campaign because if he is reelected, that increases the odds that the republicans will control the senate and he can block president obama's agenda [applause] let's just be honest about what is going on.
>> given his vote, to believe his goal is to block and a stretch president obama's agenda? >> fought on economic issues, i absolutely do. in fact, i can do the examples. we had a quarter of a million people unemployed here in the commonwealth of massachusetts last fall. president obama put forward a jobs bill. the first jobs bill would have supported 22,000 jobs here in the commonwealth. senator brown voted in lockstep with every other republican, no. and we did not get the jobs bill. a few weeks later, there was a jobs bill to prevent the layoffs of teachers and firefighters of police officers all across this commonwealth and this country. senator brown voted in lockstep with the republicans and voted no. we did not fit that bill through. >> if i could respond. >> third, there was a third jobs bill. would have supported 11,000 jobs, mostly in construction to
repair transportation that we needed it and as senator brown voted in lockstep with all the other republicans and it just to put icing on the cake, he voted against unemployment insurance extension 16 times for people who were out of work. senator brown has made clear where he stands. [applause] >> thank you. first of all, she is obviously misstating the facts. these are rejections by both democrats and republicans. [applause] if you're going to come on my record, i would at least have to refer to it. excuse me. i'm not listed in your classroom. please let me respond. [cheers and boos] with regard to the jobs bill, it was rejected in a bipartisan
matter. they raised over $450 million in new taxes. in the unemployment benefits, there was no one that lost. my mom was on welfare. i remember it being there as a safety net for people. we also try to find a way to pay for it. professor warren would have voted against it because we had a compromise that the president put forth and she said she would not have supported the compromise by the only extending the tax policy that has been in place for 10 years, but also to the unemployment benefits that we had feared she would have voted against that because she wanted to raise taxes on some of the folks with in that bracket. we actually did it. no one lost any benefits. i was proud to vote for the bill. as you know, when you are in washington, you have to go back and forth and negotiate final solution to the bill. >> let me extend this period there will be more discussion about how to create the jobs. i want to talk about the fiscal
cliff and the debt. the simpson-bowles commission which has gotten so much discussion across the country, they came up with the plan that said, look. we have to cut $4 trillion of the debt. here is how we are going to do it. if we will cut spending, but we're also going to deal with the tax code. more people should pay taxes, they say. we should eliminate some of these exemptions and deductions. we will get $1 trillion from them and in the process of doing that, we're going to lower rates for everybody and about 10% of that we will pay down the debt. why is that not a common why is that not a common-sense solution? >> the evidence by what i have
done, i will keep an open mind so we can get something done, because the president commission that study and then give a speech and did not do anything on that. we have not had a budget in the senate for four years. we need to get our house in order. >> is this an appropriate approach if you get that kind of trade-off? >> problem is every time in washington, people have a feeling they do not raise taxes in washington. we have a health care bill that is raising 18 new taxes. we have a very serious spending a problem in washington. the more money you give washington, the more they will spend. >> can you simply cut your way to a balanced budget? >> i will not raise taxes on
americans in the middle of recession. a business group said the proposals that professor boren wants to push will cut 700,000 jobs nationally. >> you are talking the lowering marginal rates -- >> proposals are not coming forward. i have already -- >> what about the mortgage deduction? >> you cannot be pitting groups against individuals and businesses. you need to sit down together in a bipartisan manner, and that is the difference between professor warren and me. if you can sit down on both sides of the aisle -- >> what he does not want to talk
about is he has signed a right wing pledged never to raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires. that is the grover norquist plan. >> he wants to extend the tax cuts for everybody? >> for example, the buffett rule. the idea that billionaires' should pay at least as much in taxes as their secretaries do, scott brown along with every other republican voted no. it was fine with and that billionaires' paid less than their secretaries. well subsidies -- the oil companies made $137 billion in profits last year. yet, the fed came up to get rid of the subsidies, senator brown voted with the republicans to say no. we are going to let them keep the subsidies. that is just wrong.
and then the big vote -- this is the really amazing one -- about a month ago, when the question came up about letting the bush tax cuts expire, senator brown followed it to say that he would let taxes rise for 98% of the families here in massachusetts and 97% of the small businesses, he would hold them hostage unless there were tax cuts for the top 3%. i think that is just wrong. [indiscernbile] >> i am trying to press both sides on what you're saying, ok? i hope that is one of the reasons that i am here. on the question of simpson- bowles, which you accept $3 billion in spending cuts if you got revenue increases? >> the point of simpson bowles, it used a balanced approach that we must have cuts and revenue
increases. i completely agree with that. that is the right approach. it is a moderate, sensible approach, not the approach that scott brown and the republicans have used. he is trying to used a balanced approach, because he has put forward proposals that would increase revenues. senator brown submitted his proposals to "the boston globe" -- >> senator brown, respond to what see said. >> want will subsidies, if in ned beatty thinks by raising taxes on energy produces will be -- if anybody thinks by raising taxes on energy producers will not be pass on, they will pass all of those off to our motorists and homeowners and everybody knows that.
if you want to have a comprehensive session about energy, we should have thit. a true all of the above approach. she is against the keystone pipeline. she is also against -- in favor of wind and solar, but we need more of an approach in that. that me talk about about role as well. the buffett rule, it funds the government for a day. more importantly, we have our own buffett rule in massachusetts. when she has been talking about everybody paying higher taxes, she had a choice to pay higher taxes herself, and she chose not to do that. number three, all of her criticisms on me is i do not
want to raise taxes. that is correct. i do not want to raise taxes on any new american in the middle of recession. when i go to businesses, they do not say take all my money and bring it to washington. they say we have been taxed and regulated and f, and the only person here who is a fiscal conservative is me. >> let me break in here. we will have more of our discussion. we will take a break and be back with our debate in a few minutes. >> live coverage from massachusetts will continue in a few minutes. when that debate is over, we will have a debate from depressed gap between bob kerrey and deb fischer. we expect that to start in less than 20 minutes from now at 8:00 eastern. >> generation to our history has worked and sacrificed to lead a better country to their
children, grandchildren, and feature generations. we were then spending our -- their money. we're not eat much more spending their money, and we are leaving them a mess that will be a very difficult one to deal with, and if we are that week, just think of who wants to come here first and take us over. the last thing i ever want to see is to see our country taken over because we're so financially but we cannot do anything. we are moving in that direction. we are on the edge of a cliff. we have got to start fixing it now, otherwise we're leaving a disaster to our children and grandchildren, and could even lose our country. >> ross perot interviewed by richard wolf on the economy, the deficit and debt, and how it has changed since 1992 and '96. find richard wolf's article today in "usa today."
the c-span campaign 2012 bus toward a virginia, visiting colleges and universities about our programming. we asked students whether the youth vote will be a factor in this election. >> and people will be a factor because they will be enthusiastic to vote, their first time, and a lot of them will vote for the direction they want their country to go in. >> no, i do not think young people will be a factor because i did not think celebrities are endorsing as much and the racial factors of this year plus election are at play. >> none people will be a huge factor because students care about the decisions that happen because the attack tomorrow. they really want to get involved in this election cycle. >> tina eric years and young
adults will pay and a poor role because we are wanting to change the world as we see fit. >> more about our political coverage on a website. now a candidate in massachusetts continue their debate life from the university of massachusetts in lowell, massachusetts. >> we have at elizabeth warren and scott brown. we're talking about the economy and how to create jobs, a concern students here about job creation and this tough economy that you both are dealing with. i want to introduce mary hazel
who has a question. please ask your question. >> good evening. i am a senior here at umass. in may will graduate in this arena. i am not scared of growing up out in the world. policies will you propose or support help students like me find jobs? >> a great question, and the answer has but the short-term part and a long term part. in the short term, we have an economy that is struggling to recover, and that shows up and lots of different ways. it is why i support the jobs bill. the president has proposed it as part of his proposal to get the economy jump-started, because it will put paychecks in people's hands and get work done that we
need to get done. once we have got those paychecks in people's hands, they spent in the local economy, with businesses, that creates more demand, the businesses hire more people, and that helps the economy get going. in the short run, it is exactly the right thing to do and i was disappointed when scott brown and republicans blocked it. in the long run, there is another answer. that is how we create jobs for the future, and i believe the answer is we have to invest in the future. we have to make this a great place to grow jobs. the way i see that is we make those investments in education, roads, bridges, in water, power, in research, in the things that give us all of the energy going forward so that this is a good place to build jobs. i will put one little person in. you're in a great state in
massachusetts, because massachusetts is on the cutting at of what we can do in new energy, in clean energy, and building innovation and tech. we're doing it in biotech. we're making the new advances for the rest of the country, for the rest of the world. we can invest it in massachusetts and we can build it in massachusetts. to do that, we need a good federal partner, someone in washington who will be there to fight for us and to invest in us. senator brown? >> thank you for your questions, and congratulations and good luck. we live in one of the greatest state in the country. massachusetts is an innovative state. the challenges that we are facing as i travel all are around massachusetts is the lack of regulatory and tax certainty. people are concerned, do not
know what the tax policies will become new regulations will be imposed on that. the result is less people hiring and looking to hire. as i was with an unemployed mom, she tries -- she has been trying to find a job. of the challenges is that people are scared to hire, and it is the tax policies that are being pushed that are a factor. take it from the national federation of independent businesses, the u.s. chamber of commerce. a lot of proposals pushed by are job-r warren hart job destroying messages. my proposals allows you to raise a million dollars online with investors. a new financing tool for you and
others to create jobs. the higher the veterans bill, i was proud to be present when the signed the bill. there are many other efforts we have done, but the key is in order to get these initiatives, you need to work together to do it. you cannot be raising taxes and have more spending when we're in a $16 trillion debt because that is the biggest concern i have, that you will not be able to pay back all the amazing amount of debt you are incurring. >> another issue is the question of immigration and the need for -- >> when do we get to respond here? chance toe gotten an inter
respond. the president has said it is one of his biggest regrets that it did not get passed. i want to interview another student. >> good evening, everyone, i am a business and finance management student. my family is in the dominican republic, and at 16 i was fortunate to become a u.s. citizen. for those young people who are not as fortunate as me, i want to know if you support or oppose the drink act and can you please tell us -- the dream act and can you please tell us why and why not. >> nutter brad you have called that coast -- senator brown, you have call that a form of
amnesty. >> but me say congratulations on becoming a u.s. citizens, but let me tell you i am in favor of full legal immigration. i have been working on that since being in the senate. i do not support the dream act. it is a form of back door amnesty -- >> ok, please go ahead. >> we need to improve our legal immigration system. warren is in favor of in state tuition. she is not in favor of securing our borders. these aren't things that are different. when it comes to the dream act, are there things we can do, certainly, but they want to bring it up and push it through
without any debate. the key to get anything done on immigration is working on increasing quotas, so we can do it legally, because we cannot take a class and move them ahead of the people who are trying to discuss it legally. >> he is right. this is a big difference between the two of us. i would strongly support the dream act. i believe that. i also believe we need comprehensive immigration reform. that means falling all small, but we need to do comprehensive immigration reform, visa or form, as part of that. we need to follow the law and enforced our borders, but we need to the immigration reform, and it needs to happen now. we cannot keep putting this off. it is not right. >> i want to move through issues
as quickly as we can. i want to touch on foreign policy. the war in afghanistan is drawing to a close. the plans have been laid out for troops to return home. what is an acceptable outcome to the war in afghanistan, and what is our responsibility to achieve that outcome after u.s. troops returned? >> we have always had difficult returned with describing that, and as a result we need to get our troops out of afghanistan as quickly as we can. >> before the president's time line? >> it is time to bring our troops home and stop spending $2 billion a week in afghanistan. we need that money. >> the united states does not have responsibility any longer? >> the cannot rebuild afghanistan for ever.
we cannot do that. having unrealistic goals and spending more money is the wrong approach. i want to say on this, all three of my brothers served in the military. our service members are incredible. they will do anything we ask of them. they work hard, they are resourceful, but that means we owe them an obligation to put them out in harm's way when we have clear goals in mind, when it is clear what we're going to do, how we will accomplish it, and how we will get out. a ranking member on armed services committee. i supported -- i had been to afghanistan, and i supported the president's surge and his timetable for withdrawal. i did not agree with that date.
our goal is to make sure that the taliban and al qaeda do not to join forces. i respectfully disagree. i will rely on the generals on the ground and air commander and chief as to when he wants to bring in our troops home. >> he would recommit forces? >> i would hope that does not happen. i would rely on the guidance from the president and hope he would come to congress to let he know what his plans are. >> who is your model supreme court justice? >> justice scalia is a very good judge. justice kennedy. justice kennedy is very good, and justice roberts, justice sotomayor, they are very qualified people there who do in a very good --
>> they do not exactly agree. >> if you had to pick one? >> i do not have to pick one, where a plan the up there, and i am proud of the ones we have. >> it would probably be elena kagan. >> let me ask you, white t think massachusetts has never elected a female senator or governor? >> i don't know. [laughter] >> no idea? it does it trouble you? >> well, right now i am trying to do something about that. [laughter] >> senator brown, d think the senator kerry would be a good
secretary of state? >> i do. he has a very good knowledge of world affairs. he is a leader on that issue, and i look to his guidance when we're dealing with foreign issues. i think he is. >> i want to do two important questions. it has been a hard-fought race pit can you each say something you admire about the other, ms. warren? >> i think senator brown has a lovely family. [laughter] ye does. [laughter] i agree with him when he ultimately voted for -- voted to get rid of don't ask don't tell. i agree with him. >> she is a hard-working, accomplished professor, and she is very qualified. she has a hard-working family as
well, and she is such a good professor, and i have heard from parents who have had their kids being taught by her, and they say she is wonderful. i would do everything i can do in my power to make sure that she continues in that position. >> i saved the most contentious for last. the worst red sox team in decades -- i hate to tell you. does bobby valentine deserve another year, or should he be fired? >> i am still wounded on that one. >> should he be fired? this is on the back page of "the boston herald." >> i would give him another
year. >> earlier this season, professor warren said the red sox would win 90 games. has been very disappointing. we need to do better next year. >> you will not commit? >> there is a lot of problems, and they need to work on them themselves. >> we will move to are closing statement, starting with senator brown. >> thank you for everybody who is here. and those of the at home who are also watching. i am from here. i grew up here, i went to school here, and aside from my marriage to gail, being your senator has been the greatest honor i have had in my life. i have tried to read the bills, understand them, understand how
they affect us. he sent me down to be the independent voter and think, and i have done exactly that. i try to find people of goodwill to help our country move forward. you have some very big challenges right now, getting our economy moving, getting our deficit, debt, and we need people down there who will work together, and i need your vote, i cannot do this alone, and thank you for holding this, david. >> ms. warren? >> thank you for holding this. they give for being here. i am not a professional politician. i got in this because america's working families are getting hammered, and washington is for
people who are hiring armies of lawyers and lobbyists. too often when it comes down to in the hard votes, he stands with the millionaires, billionaires, he stands with the oil companies. he is not there for people who are out of work, he is not there for women who want access to birth control covered by their health insurance. he is not there for seniors who are hoping to pay for prescription drugs. i do not want to go to washington to work for millionaires and billionaires and big oil. i want to go to washington to be there to fight for working families, and small businesses. that is what this is all about for me. i'm elizabeth warren, thank you very much. senator brown, thank you very much. don't forget to vote november 6. thank you very much.
>> mitt romney holds a campaign .ally in denver tonight it is his last public event before the debate on wednesday. his comments will be live tonight at 9:15 eastern on c- span2. that debate between mick romney and president obama will be light wednesday at the university of denver. our live debate previews start at 7:00 p.m. eastern. derates, jim lehrer monit the debate. on-line coverage here on c-span. >> ross gave a good answer, but i got to respond directly to president bush. you questioned my patriotism.
i honor your service in world war ii. i honor mr. perot's service and the service of every man and women who ever served, including your chairman and of joint chiefs. when joe mccarthy attack people for their paired treason, quest for their patriotism, he was wrong. you were wrong to attack my patriotism. i was opposed to the war, but i love my country, and media a country that will bring this country together, not divide it. i want to lead a unified country. i question his judgment and character. i do not accept his demonstrating and organizing demonstrations in a foreign country when your country is